Love you both for the high level dialogue. This 16-year look back was particularly enjoyable because I am single-handedly trying to reverse the dismal sales of Losing/Winning the Races. I wondered whether John would change either of the two chapters in Winning that I found most compelling: Indianapolis and the scathingly accurate criticism of sociological “science”. My heavily underlined, yellow highlighted, and dog-eared copy of Winning testifies to how seriously I study John’s writing, and I am so glad to know that he stands by what he wrote. It was brave then and remains so.
As a clinical psychologist, I feel the same about much of academic psychology and particularly the positions of the American Psychological Association, which has been captured by leftist radicals. To disagree with the positions runs the serious risk of being “canceled”, which is appalling for a field claiming to be scientific.
Not to short change Glenn, but my mathematical and statistical were barely sufficient to get my dissertation approved, so reading the best of Loury would likely be futile.
I’m sure you’re familiar with this, and there is a certain arrogance in it, but perhaps Glenn is an example: A conservative at 20 has no heart, and a liberal at 40 has no mind. Sorry, couldn’t resist.
Man, you guys sound so young!!! Glenn, you sounded a bit like a nerd back in the day...it's very cute. Thanks so much for all you do, both of you...you bring voices of sanity to a world gone mad with MAGA & woke identitarianism.
I don't know how John can claim that it is just a sliver of people that believe in the preference and discrimination mantra on the left and at the same time judge the entire Republican party because of the Tea Party. It is not just a sliver of people. When California voted on prop 16, 43% voted to repeal prop 209 and allow hiring by race in government and other institutions. 43%! That was 2020 before the full impact of Kendi's twisted philosophy had stormed its way through public conscience. The fact is the Democrat Party has become the party of discrimination and racism (some will argue history shows it always has been). John can't own up to this fact. Why? It's a mystery.
Connecticut has openly discriminating laws and program on the books, voted in by party line by Democrat supermajority.
Glenn and John can do a stand up act, more comedy clubs dates where you can share your wisdom in a light hearted manner. How else can we get young people’s attention ?
I think John and Glenn are missing something in their discusssion on welfare/deindustrialization and it’s impact on the decline of black communities. Glenn and others are right. De-industrialization did harm those communities by ripping good paying jobs out of tne communities, jobs that helped unskilled black men make a living wage. John is right that expanded American welfare and other cultural developments did incentivize single parency.
But “what if” 1960s and 70s American welfare did not incentivize single parency ? What if we had a welfare system similar to the British where unemployment insurance is permanent and housing and medical insurance are free.
I don’t favor the UK system but I think black communities wouid not have declined if American welfare did not incentivize single parency.
Perhaps someone has done a comparison with black residents in England? In the 60s and 70s those communities were tiny compared to the Us black communities but it wouid be an interesting control group for an analysis although their are substantial dissimilarities between the communities.
You are correct about the perverse incentives in welfare such that one can end up with less income by getting off welfare and taking a poor paying job. Economically, it is the marginal cost that matters. Glenn can elaborate, but if a welfare recipient were permitted to continue to receive welfare but a lesser amount based on the salary of a job the incentives to work would make sense. University of Chicago professor Casey Mulligan has written on this, and without lots of equations. It’s common sense, and why I still love micro economics, because it is about incentives at the margin.
Oddly, Clinton made a few improvements on welfare incentives, but they were soon overturned.
That was fascinating - I'm glad Glenn and John decided to do that.
I wasn't familiar with Glenn and John until relatively recently, so John's longstanding conservatism came as a bit of a surprise to me. I think I had him pegged as something like a moderate, older-style liberal who is appalled by what the left fringe has been up to. (At least I'm right about the latter part of that!).
With 16 years of conversations in the books, I'd like to hear more episodes like this one if the opportunity arises.
If you read Losing the Race and Winning the Race in which John documents life and times at leftist U of C Berkeley, I think you’ll appreciate why he was conservative at a young age. He had a nose for bias as well as poor academic rigor, which is not what the academy is supposed to be about.
I have stated here before that I have my collection of the black guys on my iPod. Every episode dating all the way back to their first conversation. They have been a great inspiration for my life and my current work in academia. They are part of the reason that I am pursuing my PhD in history.
It would be a blessing to listen to these two men for the next sixteen years. Sign me up!!!
Prof McWhorter looked so young! Great to see clips from the past. I suggest that going forward the archives are dug into more such that if a subject spoken about in an episode by the hosts or a guest has been dwelt on before in an old episode and was controversial then snippets of the clip can be aired.
Prof McWhorter looked so young! Great to see clips from the past. I suggest that going forward the archives are dug into more such that if a subject spoken about in an episode by the hosts or a guest has been dwelt on before in an old episode and was controversial then snippets of the clip can be aired.
Glenn, with great respect, I’m struck by how different you sounded 16 years ago. FWIW, to my ear your voice sounds more recognizably Black, and less assimilated to the clipped cadences of White American intellectualism. Could this perhaps be an effect of the greater cultural enfranchisement and increased standing of Black voices and culture resulting from the sequence of Obama’s presidency, the emergence of BLM, and then the resistance to Trump? Obviously these elevating cultural forces have had their discontents, but did they perhaps encourage you, in a deeply ironic way maybe, to let loose in embracing your own Blackness all the more?
Glenn is spot on about the vain egoism of Obama’s motives. One way we can know what Obama was thinking is his own language: namely, his explicit obsession with the idea of his “legacy.” Christopher Caldwell wrote a great article about this around the end of Obama’s presidency, which, alas, was deleted from the internet along with the rest of the Weekly Standard’s generally far less meritorious archive a few years ago. Perry Anderson (who’s incidentally on the record, albeit critically, as an admirer of Caldwell) made a similar point about Obama as establishing a mode of celebrity politics, ultimately leading to Trump, in his really excellent post mortem of the first Black president’s administration.
(A) I appreciate Glenn's self-awareness vis-à-vis Obama: "I'm just cynical..."
In many ways, yeah =)
I know this isn't the place to say the following but it's true: Obama Derangement Syndrome was REAL. I will never understand how someone can despise Obama this much and be so neutral about Trump.
(B) Glenn's voice dropped about four semitones since then? What's up with that?
Still watching...
Saw the rest. Fun stuff. Went by way too fast.
I don't think John has changed much at all. But it is interesting how Glenn is different in some ways but not entirely. It might shock some to know Glenn was a big Hillary fan during the '08 race.
I loved the question at the end: "Is objectivity at a think tank any better than at Harvard or Stanford?"
It really depends on the topic (and who's speaking or writing).
Re: Glenn's voice. We've got better recording equipment now, which captures more of the spectrum of Glenn's voice. He was recording on relatively primitive equipment in 2007, which cut out out the low end, hence the illusion that his voice has changed. Gear matters!
Love you both for the high level dialogue. This 16-year look back was particularly enjoyable because I am single-handedly trying to reverse the dismal sales of Losing/Winning the Races. I wondered whether John would change either of the two chapters in Winning that I found most compelling: Indianapolis and the scathingly accurate criticism of sociological “science”. My heavily underlined, yellow highlighted, and dog-eared copy of Winning testifies to how seriously I study John’s writing, and I am so glad to know that he stands by what he wrote. It was brave then and remains so.
As a clinical psychologist, I feel the same about much of academic psychology and particularly the positions of the American Psychological Association, which has been captured by leftist radicals. To disagree with the positions runs the serious risk of being “canceled”, which is appalling for a field claiming to be scientific.
Not to short change Glenn, but my mathematical and statistical were barely sufficient to get my dissertation approved, so reading the best of Loury would likely be futile.
I’m sure you’re familiar with this, and there is a certain arrogance in it, but perhaps Glenn is an example: A conservative at 20 has no heart, and a liberal at 40 has no mind. Sorry, couldn’t resist.
Man, you guys sound so young!!! Glenn, you sounded a bit like a nerd back in the day...it's very cute. Thanks so much for all you do, both of you...you bring voices of sanity to a world gone mad with MAGA & woke identitarianism.
I don't know how John can claim that it is just a sliver of people that believe in the preference and discrimination mantra on the left and at the same time judge the entire Republican party because of the Tea Party. It is not just a sliver of people. When California voted on prop 16, 43% voted to repeal prop 209 and allow hiring by race in government and other institutions. 43%! That was 2020 before the full impact of Kendi's twisted philosophy had stormed its way through public conscience. The fact is the Democrat Party has become the party of discrimination and racism (some will argue history shows it always has been). John can't own up to this fact. Why? It's a mystery.
Connecticut has openly discriminating laws and program on the books, voted in by party line by Democrat supermajority.
Glenn and John can do a stand up act, more comedy clubs dates where you can share your wisdom in a light hearted manner. How else can we get young people’s attention ?
I think John and Glenn are missing something in their discusssion on welfare/deindustrialization and it’s impact on the decline of black communities. Glenn and others are right. De-industrialization did harm those communities by ripping good paying jobs out of tne communities, jobs that helped unskilled black men make a living wage. John is right that expanded American welfare and other cultural developments did incentivize single parency.
But “what if” 1960s and 70s American welfare did not incentivize single parency ? What if we had a welfare system similar to the British where unemployment insurance is permanent and housing and medical insurance are free.
I don’t favor the UK system but I think black communities wouid not have declined if American welfare did not incentivize single parency.
Perhaps someone has done a comparison with black residents in England? In the 60s and 70s those communities were tiny compared to the Us black communities but it wouid be an interesting control group for an analysis although their are substantial dissimilarities between the communities.
You are correct about the perverse incentives in welfare such that one can end up with less income by getting off welfare and taking a poor paying job. Economically, it is the marginal cost that matters. Glenn can elaborate, but if a welfare recipient were permitted to continue to receive welfare but a lesser amount based on the salary of a job the incentives to work would make sense. University of Chicago professor Casey Mulligan has written on this, and without lots of equations. It’s common sense, and why I still love micro economics, because it is about incentives at the margin.
Oddly, Clinton made a few improvements on welfare incentives, but they were soon overturned.
Brilliant episode!! So much to let “brew” in my mind...I love the then and now-so interesting.
And I love past John on the cordless 😁
I'm so glad John got over constantly interjecting "mhmm, yeah, uh, mm, mhmmm" during the conversation.
That said I think that was a vestige of voice only phone calls, when you couldn't use non-verbal cues to indicate you were engaged.
That was fascinating - I'm glad Glenn and John decided to do that.
I wasn't familiar with Glenn and John until relatively recently, so John's longstanding conservatism came as a bit of a surprise to me. I think I had him pegged as something like a moderate, older-style liberal who is appalled by what the left fringe has been up to. (At least I'm right about the latter part of that!).
With 16 years of conversations in the books, I'd like to hear more episodes like this one if the opportunity arises.
If you read Losing the Race and Winning the Race in which John documents life and times at leftist U of C Berkeley, I think you’ll appreciate why he was conservative at a young age. He had a nose for bias as well as poor academic rigor, which is not what the academy is supposed to be about.
I have stated here before that I have my collection of the black guys on my iPod. Every episode dating all the way back to their first conversation. They have been a great inspiration for my life and my current work in academia. They are part of the reason that I am pursuing my PhD in history.
It would be a blessing to listen to these two men for the next sixteen years. Sign me up!!!
Hear, hear! Been following these guys since '07 and looking forward to more good discussion
Prof McWhorter looked so young! Great to see clips from the past. I suggest that going forward the archives are dug into more such that if a subject spoken about in an episode by the hosts or a guest has been dwelt on before in an old episode and was controversial then snippets of the clip can be aired.
Prof McWhorter looked so young! Great to see clips from the past. I suggest that going forward the archives are dug into more such that if a subject spoken about in an episode by the hosts or a guest has been dwelt on before in an old episode and was controversial then snippets of the clip can be aired.
Loved this episode! Maybe some flashbacks or reappraisals of your earlier chats could be a regular theme?
Glenn, with great respect, I’m struck by how different you sounded 16 years ago. FWIW, to my ear your voice sounds more recognizably Black, and less assimilated to the clipped cadences of White American intellectualism. Could this perhaps be an effect of the greater cultural enfranchisement and increased standing of Black voices and culture resulting from the sequence of Obama’s presidency, the emergence of BLM, and then the resistance to Trump? Obviously these elevating cultural forces have had their discontents, but did they perhaps encourage you, in a deeply ironic way maybe, to let loose in embracing your own Blackness all the more?
I’ve never gotten a hint of either not embracing their blackness. They are dignified Black men with high standards for all.
Glenn is spot on about the vain egoism of Obama’s motives. One way we can know what Obama was thinking is his own language: namely, his explicit obsession with the idea of his “legacy.” Christopher Caldwell wrote a great article about this around the end of Obama’s presidency, which, alas, was deleted from the internet along with the rest of the Weekly Standard’s generally far less meritorious archive a few years ago. Perry Anderson (who’s incidentally on the record, albeit critically, as an admirer of Caldwell) made a similar point about Obama as establishing a mode of celebrity politics, ultimately leading to Trump, in his really excellent post mortem of the first Black president’s administration.
That was a good one! Thanks.
(A) I appreciate Glenn's self-awareness vis-à-vis Obama: "I'm just cynical..."
In many ways, yeah =)
I know this isn't the place to say the following but it's true: Obama Derangement Syndrome was REAL. I will never understand how someone can despise Obama this much and be so neutral about Trump.
(B) Glenn's voice dropped about four semitones since then? What's up with that?
Still watching...
Saw the rest. Fun stuff. Went by way too fast.
I don't think John has changed much at all. But it is interesting how Glenn is different in some ways but not entirely. It might shock some to know Glenn was a big Hillary fan during the '08 race.
I loved the question at the end: "Is objectivity at a think tank any better than at Harvard or Stanford?"
It really depends on the topic (and who's speaking or writing).
Re: Glenn's voice. We've got better recording equipment now, which captures more of the spectrum of Glenn's voice. He was recording on relatively primitive equipment in 2007, which cut out out the low end, hence the illusion that his voice has changed. Gear matters!
Damn, and I'm an audio guy. That equipment must have been horrible lol